[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
Lofton,
Your summary points #1 through #5 below are accurate.
Regarding point #3, I don't recall ever mentioning that new metafiles in the
test suite should follow the WebCGM 2.1 profile. In the reviewer guidelines
[1], I only mention that the CGMs should be valid without mentioning a
specific profile edition. This was intentional. My thinking was that the
CGM need only be valid with respect to the base CGM 99 standard and also be
suitable for its specific test. For example, some of the "new" tests were
added to fill gaps in the test suite; i.e. they are testing WebCGM 2.0 or
even 1.0 features. It didn't make a lot of sense to me to require a WebCGM
2.1 metafile in those cases. However, I did raise the profile issue in one
of my test reviews [2]. The issue here was not simply the fact that the
profile was ATA GREXCHANGE instead of WebCGM. The main issue in my mind was
that the metafile contained elements that were not allowed in any edition of
WebCGM. The re-submitted metafile is a compliant WebCGM 2.0 metafile, and I
accepted it without any reservations.
Don's ACI work brings up another consideration that I hadn't initially
thought about. One of the stated use cases for ACI is to specify things
such as a line cap style in a version 1 CGM [3]. In a version 3 or 4 CGM,
this of course is accomplished with the version 3 Line Cap element.
Presumably this use case is intended for legacy CGMs that predate the
introduction of version 3 elements. If so, these CGMs also predate WebCGM
1.0 by several years. One could then make the argument that a compliant
WebCGM metafile of any profile edition does not make a good test case for
these ACI tests.
If you want to look at a specific example, aciFontNormalization.cgm contains
Times_Roman as one of the entries in its font list. This is a WebCGM
profile violation, because Times-Roman (with a hyphen instead of underscore)
is specified as a recommended font. However, WebCGM 2.1 specifies rules for
"normalizing" font names such as this, and this test is simply intended to
test that specific subsection of WebCGM 2.1 [4]. The very nature of this
test makes a WebCGM 2.1 compliant metafile unsuitable.
The old CALS CGM profile specified in MIL-D-28003A did in fact specify the
font name as TIMES_ROMAN with an underscore. Also, a MIL-D-28003A compliant
CGM would not contain the WebCGM mandated Font Properties element, because
that profile did not allow the Font Properties element. In my opinion, such
a metafile fits the stated use case and would make a better ACI test case
than any metafile conforming to any profile edition of WebCGM.
Regards,
Rob
[1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/ReviewerInstructions.html
[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200901/msg00003.html
[3]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.h
tml#ACI-motivation
[4]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.h
tml#ACI-maplist
-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:56 PM
To: 'CGM Open WebCGM TC'
Subject: RE: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
Don -- the action item is back to you to correct the metafile errors from
Rob and Ulrich. Can you fix these problems? (Matrix [1] is updated.)
Rob, Ulrich, All --
Does this accurately summarize the metafile problems, as detected by
MetaCheck (and reviewers)?
1.) Max VDC Extent violation;
2.) "ColourClass:colour" problem (MetaCheck bug);
3.) ProfileEd is 2.0 (ought to be 2.1);
4.) Max Colour Index violation;
5.) Font List violation ('arial' in Font List but no Font Properties
element).
Overall opinion: While these problems must be fixed, they are in some
sense "formal", and I think most of them will not affect an implementor's
ability to use the file. The overall structure and content of the test is
appropriate. Details:
#1: the MaxVdcExt element is a pain in the butt! Should never have been
added to CGM:1999. But ... there it is, so may as well bite the bullet and
make it right. (IMHO, this is purely a "formal" error -- should have no
practical impact on early users of the test.)
#2: metacheck bug, nothing need be changed.
#3: ought to be 2.1 for new metafiles in the 2.1 test suite, yes? (See
Rob's comments below about this -- MetaCheck will gripe but we know it's
not a problem.)
#4: Another "formal" violation -- I would expect minimal impact on early
users of the test.
#5: This is somewhat at the heart of the test. While it *might* not
impact early users of the test, on the other hand it might. It could be
fixed by either changing the font to 'helvetica', or by adding a Font
Properties element.
Thoughts (anyone)?
Btw, once these metafile problems are resolved, we will have a big batch of
tests ready for "Approved", I think.
Regards,
-Lofton.
[1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/test-matrix.htm
At 05:02 PM 3/19/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Don,
>
>The binary CGMs that you've submitted are invalid. I've attached a ZIP file
>containing the MetaCheck trace output for each.
>
>Lofton,
>
>Please reset the status of these tests to reworking.
>
> aciDefaultFont
> aciEdgeAttr
> aciFontNormalization
> aciGenericFonts
> aciHatchStyleDef
> aciLineAttr
> aciLineEdgeTypeDef
> aciMapListOrder
> aciMitreLimit
> aciRestrictedTextType
> aciSimpleFontSubsitution
>
>The CGM conformance violation is the same in each; namely, the VDC Extent
>exceeds the specified Maximum VDC Extent. Each CGM has (1,1) (-1,-1) for
>the Maximum VDC Extent and that is well exceeded by the VDC Extent in each
>case.
>
>These CGMs also highlight an inconsistency in the WebCGM profile. T.16.8
>allows for 16-bit color index precision. However, T.16.9 caps the maximum
>color index at 255, i.e. effectively limiting you to only 8-bit color index
>precision. We should make these two table rows in the PPF consistent with
>each other.
>
>More later,
>
>Rob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 'Don Larson (E-mail)' [mailto:dlarson@cgmlarson.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:37 AM
>To: Lofton Henderson
>Cc: 'CGM Open WebCGM TC'
>Subject: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
>
>
>Lofton,
>
>I have corrected and updated the following ACI files:
>
> aciFontNormalization.aci
> aciLineAttr.aci
> aciHatchStyleDef.aci
> aciMitreLimit.aci
>
>
>Also all the ACI related CGMs have been converted to binary:
>
> aciDefaultFont.cgm
> aciEdgeAttr.cgm
> aciFontNormalization.cgm
> aciGenericFonts.cgm
> aciHatchStyleDef.cgm
> aciLineAttr.cgm
> aciLineEdgeTypeDef.cgm
> aciMapListOrder.cgm
> aciMitreLimit.cgm
> aciRestrictedTextType.cgm
> aciSimpleFontSubsitution.cgm
>
>
>Regards,
>Don
>
> > At 10:22 AM 3/17/2009 -0500, Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > >Don,
> > >
> > >aciMitreLimit aci file <mitreLimit limitVal=5 />
> > > should be <mitreLimit limitVal="5" />
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >aciRestrictedTextType aci file OK
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >aciLineEdgeType aci file OK
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >aciHatchStyleDef aci file </hatchStyleDef>
> > > should be />
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >aciLineAtt aci file <lineCap lineCapInd=2 lineDashInd=3 />
> > > <lineJoin lineJoinInd=4 />
> > > <lineTypeCont lineContMode=3 />
> > > Should be <lineCap lineCapInd="2" lineDashInd="3" />
> > > <lineJoin lineJoinInd="4" />
> > > <lineTypeCont lineContMode="3" />
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >aciEdgeAtt aci file OK
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >aciFontNormalization aci file <fontmap> and </fontmap>
> > > should be <fontMap> and </fontMap>
> > >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Forrest
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Don Larson (E-mail) [mailto:dlarson@cgmlarson.com]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:02 AM
> > >To: Lofton Henderson
> > >Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
> > >Subject: re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
> > >
> > >Lofton,
> > >
> > >All of the following ACI files have been updated by adding-
> > > <?xml version = "1.0" ?>
> > > <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM "webConfig.dtd">
> > >
> > >
> > >aciFontNormalization
> > >aciGenericFonts
> > >aciMapListOrder
> > >aciLineAttr
> > >aciEdgeAttr
> > >aciLineEdgeTypeDef
> > >aciHatchStyleDef
> > >aciEdgeAttr.aci
> > >aciHatchStyleDef.aci
> > >aciLineAttr.aci
> > >aciLineEdgeTypeDef.aci
> > >aciMitreLimit.aci
> > >aciRestrictedTextType.aci
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Don L.
> > >Larson Software Technology
> > >www.cgmlarson.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > Don,
> > >
> > > > When you have corrected this, on every ACI file, could you
please
> > inform
> > > > the TC via the TC list?
> > >
> > > > Then I'll update the matrix and we'll be ready for final steps
>toward
> > TC
> > > > "Approved".
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Lofton.
> > >
> > > > At 02:57 PM 3/16/2009 -0500, Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lofton,
> > > >
> > > > None of the aci files in the test suite are valid xml files. Don
>has
> > > > corrected one error I pointed out in his latest update but all
aci
> > files
> > > > in the test suite are missing the two lines below, the first
line
>is
> > > > required and the second line should be included
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version = "1.0" ?>
> > > > <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM "webConfig.dtd">
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Forrest
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:33 PM
> > > > To: Forrest Carpenter; 'WebCGM'
> > > > Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forrest,
> > >
> > > > At 09:41 AM 3/10/2009 -0500, Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I don t believe the aci files provided in the tests are valid. I
>have
> > > > attached an example of what I believe the files should look
like.
>I
> > have
> > > > also found one error in the DTD, dashlength should be changed to
> > > > dashLength.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you be specific, what files you are referring to? I.e.,
list
> > them?
> > > > You had the Action to review these 7:
> > >
> > > > aciFontNormalization
> > > > aciGenericFonts
> > > > aciMapListOrder
> > > > aciLineAttr
> > > > aciEdgeAttr
> > > > aciLineEdgeTypeDef
> > > > aciHatchStyleDef
> > >
> > > > Does your comment apply to all 7 of these?
> > >
> > > > Then Don sent an update message saying he had updated this
>different
> > set
> > > > of files:
> > >
> > > > aciEdgeAttr.aci
> > > > aciHatchStyleDef.aci
> > > > aciLineAttr.aci
> > > > aciLineEdgeTypeDef.aci
> > > > aciMitreLimit.aci
> > > > aciRestrictedTextType.aci
> > >
> > > > I'm getting a little lost, trying to track the status of
"Review"
>or
> > > > "Reworking", and who has the action item, in the matrix.
> > >
> > > > -Lofton.
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]